Winning Texas Hold'em

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
I also highly recommend a number of 2+2 books, just not that one because it's riddled with bad advice. It contains monkey logic like "you should sometimes open limp with aces to disguise your hand when you open limp with other stuff" which is the equivalent of "you should make one bad play to make another bad play less bad".



[/ QUOTE ]

Not taking sides here at all, but are you suggesting that you should never open limp? If so, are you just referring to shorthanded games (fwiw, I would agree generally with that). Also are you suggesting you should NEVER open limp in a shorthanded game with AA? What about a situation where you are UTG and the player to your left raises 75% of all hands unless raised before him, in which case he calls a lot of the time but also folds more frequently than when hes facing one bet, and generally otherwise plays bad postflop. In this situation, would you not agree that open limping AA would be a good idea sometimes? (I understand this isn't Sklansky's rationale, but just wondered what your thoughts were?

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
But we're talking about a loose game, so how would you ever know that a raise will force 87o out? In fact, most opponents will call two cold with 87o if it's a loose game, almost by definition. Indeed, that was the whole premise of the section, that a raise won't cut down the field. Hence, by your own logic, you should raise the AQ.


[/ QUOTE ]

On pages 159 and 160 of HPFAP it says:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a bit of a two-edged sword here. If you're playing against extremely terrible opponents, it's hard not to raise with pretty good hands because even though you're costing yourself money on the later streets, you're gaining so much before the flop because you hand is usually so much better than theirs. In other words, if people are coming in with absolutely everything, you have got to raise with an AQ simply because your hand is so much better on average than so many of the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you also read the paragraph that follows.

[ QUOTE ]
I remember something that happened not to long ago. You said that Matt Maroon's book contained many errors. Then, when he asked you to address the specifics of what he wrote, you said it would cost him at least $10,000. Explain then, why anyone would want to go over the issues in your books for free. Information/idea-sharing is a two-way street.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your memory is not quite right.

Maroon wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
And Mason, I would be eternally grateful if you would email me or PM me and tell me why you thought my book "not very good".


[/ QUOTE ]

I replied:

[ QUOTE ]
The fee for me to go through your book and explain all the errors in it to you would be very high, well into the five figures. But for someone who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year it should be something that you would want to do.

Of course, these figures are just pocket change to me and I would probably assign this task, assuming you came up with the money, to someone like Ed Miller, but you would still learn a lot.

Otherwise, you'll have to wait for my review of your book which will probably appear in our July magazine. It's already written and you got a 4 on my 1-to-10 scale. Also, keep in mind that my reviews are known to be very accurate, and I have my reputation for producing accurate reviews to uphold.


[/ QUOTE ]

I will have some specifics when my review is released (and it is now scheduled for our August Magazine).

You need to understand that we frequently get requests from all sorts of people who have a product that they would like for us to review and give comments. What these people never consider is how much of our time it would take to do something like this right. Thus when I now get one of these invitations, my response is to attach a price to it, and as you can see, that price is expensive. You can read the whole thread here:


And finally you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Information/idea-sharing is a two-way street.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's what these forums are about. For instance, the AQ issue that you have brought up has already been discussed in detail on these forums with both David and I participating.

MM

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also highly recommend a number of 2+2 books, just not that one because it's riddled with bad advice. It contains monkey logic like "you should sometimes open limp with aces to disguise your hand when you open limp with other stuff" which is the equivalent of "you should make one bad play to make another bad play less bad".



[/ QUOTE ]

Not taking sides here at all, but are you suggesting that you should never open limp? If so, are you just referring to shorthanded games (fwiw, I would agree generally with that). Also are you suggesting you should NEVER open limp in a shorthanded game with AA? What about a situation where you are UTG and the player to your left raises 75% of all hands unless raised before him, in which case he calls a lot of the time but also folds more frequently than when hes facing one bet, and generally otherwise plays bad postflop. In this situation, would you not agree that open limping AA would be a good idea sometimes? (I understand this isn't Sklansky's rationale, but just wondered what your thoughts were?

[/ QUOTE ]

Open-limping/3-betting pf is good times.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand Maroon recommends to play about 80% of the hands in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, our book says

[ QUOTE ]
at least 40 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the section that is getting referenced is arguing for looseness not tightness. We use the term "at least 40 percent" and implied the right percentage could be quite a bit higher. How high depends on how well you play compared to your opponent. If you are the better player, it could indeed be as high as 80 percent.

The one key point is that surprisingly your overall results won't change that much between playing 45 percent of the hands and 80 percent of the hands because these extra hands are about break even.

The reason why the book leans towards the tighter recommendation is because frankly we are protecting the less than expert reader from getting involved with hands that are only profitable for the best players.

Best wishes,
Mason

[TheMaroon]

Actually Mason your memory is not quite right. In a thread about me you came out of nowhere and mentioned that my book was "not very good". You gave no specifics, so I asked for some. I didn't just start a thread asking you for a product review.

Then, as Matros pointed out, you criticized me for doing the same thing, even though I at least said what about your book was incorrect, just not why.

And toast, I'm ok with open limping only in very loose games, just not with what the 2+2 books would refer to as group 1 hands. In games loose enough for that you don't need to limp with any great hands for deception, people aren't paying attention anyway and even if they were they'd still call with crap. Loose games are usually comprised of a mix of players, some of whom are so oblivious they wouldn't see your hand if you flipped it face up, and the rest of whom just want to gamble and wouldn't care.

If you're in a game that loose and are open limping, you're doing it with enough suited connectors and small pairs that any flop could have hit you, that's all the deception you need. Deception is useless in those games, the EV you lose by not getting extra bets in preflop when you have aces isn't worth it.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Mason your memory is not quite right. In a thread about me you came out of nowhere and mentioned that my book was "not very good". You gave no specifics, so I asked for some. I didn't just start a thread asking you for a product review.

[/ QUOTE ]

My memory is exactly right. I put a link to that thread in one of my posts above. Furthermore, as I said in that thread and in a post in this thread, you'll have to wait for the review to be published which is now scheduled for August.

MM

[TheMaroon]

You're right, it isn't your memory that's fuzzy, it's your logic. You linked to the thread but apparently didn't read it. If you did you would see that Matros was exactly correct, you criticized my book without giving any specifics and then, in this thread, derided me for doing the same.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
It contains monkey logic like "you should sometimes open limp with aces to disguise your hand when you open limp with other stuff" which is the equivalent of "you should make one bad play to make another bad play less bad".


[/ QUOTE ]

Going from memory, I can't remember there being anything like this in the book. On the bottom of page 22 it does say:

[ QUOTE ]
You may also occasionally limp with AA or KK. The time to do this would be when your early position raises are not getting any callers. If raised, you would frequently, but not always reraise. (However, if you are heads-up and are raised we suggest that you usually just call with aces or kings to add deception against your one opponent. Then plan to raise on fourth street.) In addition, be less inclined to limp with two kings as opposed to two aces. This is because with a pair of kings, an overcard — the ace — can come on the flop, while no overcards can come to a pair of aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is a lot different from what you state. Perhaps you can point me to what it is you are actually referencing.

MM

[larrondo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Of course, these figures are just pocket change to me and I would probably assign this task, assuming you came up with the money, to someone like Ed Miller, but you would still learn a lot."


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this supposed to be a joke? If not, I've got to say, it's pretty vulger and classless.

[Mason Malmuth]

No it's not a joke. You may feel it's vulgar and classless, but we don't. I suggest you carefully reread this this thread to get a better understanding for my comments.

MM